Loading...
Planning & Design Meetings Schematic Design Meeting #5 10/26/2010 - Minutes Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 26 October 2010 P. 1 PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL Palo Alto Unified School District PERFORMING ARTS CENTER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: 26 October 2010, 3:30 pm-5:00 pm SUBJECT: Performing Arts Center, Schematic Design Meeting #4 ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached) The following are the highlights of the meeting: 1. Erwin Lee (EL) welcomed the committee and noted this was a special meeting to discuss ways to scale back the plans in order to bring the project back within budget. The Schematic Design documents have been cost estimated by two firms and the project came in about $4.5 million over budget. The increase was due to requested scope creep which was not offset by the favorable market conditions. 2. The group discussed why the project needed to scale back. Highlights were: Michael Najar (MN) asked whether there was a way to fund the project as designed now. Tom Hodges replied that the magnitude of cost increase over budget does not only entail the construction cost but the project cost, and that the BOE had already approved a budget increase. Also the BOE had approved a project with 30,000 SF of area whereas the plans now totaled nearly 40,000 SF of area. Kathleen Woods (KW) asked how the CTE grant could be applied now. TH replied that the grant was not yet funded and even though the PAC was in line to receive it the funds may not be available for many years. No assumption can be made as far as when the funds may become available. EL noted that the original scheme B which the BOE had approved did not contain various spaces which had since been added such as the expanded second floor with a costume shop and a classroom. 3. EL noted that the intent was to reduce the building cost by about $3.5 million. Cost savings could come from reducing building area by 7,300 SF. In addition a cost reduction of $.5 million could come from the site and another $.5 million could come from equipment costs reallocation. EL presented plans of each level that compared the original scheme with a reduced scheme and highlighted the savings in floor area. EL also presented a revised site plan with reduced scope of work. Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 26 October 2010 P. 3  JD added that many new theaters often use a ducted system due to its lower cost.  James Hilmer (JH) requested that if at all possible the plenum be kept in the project as it allows maximum flexibility for running conduit or wire for communications and it can be easily changed. JD noted that pull pipes can be provided at strategic areas for the same purpose. JH noted that these pull tubes are often crushed during construction and it’s not discovered until occupancy.  JH did not mind that the front and back of the Tech levels are not connected since there is still circulation via the catwalks.  KW expressed concern that the Costume Shop was eliminated as it was necessary to have in the same vicinity. Jeff Wilner (JW) noted that there would be rooms in Building 100 coming available with the completion of the Media Arts Center which could be re-purposed into a Costume Shop.  MN agreed that Building 100 would become vital now that the PAC can’t accommodate all the essential spaces in close proximity. 5. Aimee Lopez started a discussion on the merits of the mechanical Orchestra Pit. Highlights of the discussion included: JD noted that the benefit of a mechanical orchestra pit is that it changes with the push of a button. A manual orchestra pit requires two experienced people half a day to change the configuration. JD further noted that the difference in costs can be substantial. A mechanical pit is approximately $250,000 versus $50,000 for a pit with covers. JD noted that it’s possible to build the pit to receive a mechanical elevator in the future. The pit needs to be 5-foot deep versus 1.5-feet deep for a manual pit. KW asked if the pit covers are heavy and JD noted that they were light, constructed of honeycomb panels and can be lifted into place by two people. MN mentioned that this was a program discussion that would require further discussions. 6. TH began a discussion on reducing the budget for equipment. Highlights included: TH asked JD what portion of the equipment was not fixed and could be funded separately. JD noted that it was not wise to have some equipment in the base bid and others not if the entire system needed to work as a whole. TH noted that the question is about funding rather than about how the project would be bid or constructed. Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 26 October 2010 P. 2  Lower Level Plan: Area was reduced by 820 SF. The elevator was relocated to allow a shorter hallway. The Trap Room was raised to 8-feet below the Stage to align with the Orchestra Pit which eliminates the need for a lift.  First Floor Plan: Area was reduced by 1,800 SF. Radius of the Lobby was reduced by 4-feet and the stairs and south entry doors were brought in 5-feet. To minimize the impact to the Lobby the Concessions was moved into the area by the Control Room and the Control Room size was reduced. Green Room and Dressing Rooms were reduced by 8-feet and the Utility room was reduced too.  Second Floor Plan: Area was reduced by 4,016 SF. The Classroom and stairway at the back were eliminated and the Costume Shop turned into the Classroom by increasing its size and adding an adjoining office. The Storage mezzanine was kept but its only access is off the loading area below.  Tech Level Plan: Area was reduced by 700 SF. The passage ways that connected the front and back of house were eliminated. These areas are still connected by the catwalks above which have not been reduced.  Site Plan: Limit of work area was reduced by about 15,000 SF. Also the plaza paving was reduced and replaced with less costly landscaping. Path from the future Scene Shop in Building 100 to the Yard of the new PAC was preserved. 4. A group discussion followed:  MN noted that to reduce area the PAC could also reduce seating, for example, from 600 to 400-500 seats. KW agreed that the drama department didn’t need so many seats.  Jedd de Lucia (JD) noted that the balcony could be omitted to save costs but the site was too constrained to fit a 500 seat theater on one floor. Currently the first floor fits 380 seats.  TH noted that the BOE had already approved a 600 seat theater and it would be difficult to present a smaller theater given that they had approved a budget increase for the 600 seats.  KW expressed concern that the Green Room was being reduced and noted that the Green Room at the Saratoga HS Theater had been reduced making it too small. JD noted that the reduced Green Room was still larger than the original program area of 900 SF.  JD noted that the high bay loading and storage area would still be necessary for orchestra shell storage, unless the Meyer sound system was approved.  EL noted that to further save costs the below floor air plenum for the positive air displacement system can be omitted and replaced with a more conventional ducted return and supply air system. Palo Alto HS PAC SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING Palo Alto Unified School District 26 October 2010 P. 4 Equipment list was reviewed, and JD noted that $.5 million of the equipment budgeted can be categorized as group 2 equipment. TH noted that $.5 million was an acceptable target figure to fund raise for. TH asked JD to categorized more specifically what parts of the equipment and furnishings are in group 1, 2 and 3. 7. MN asked whether the new reduced design would not look like a mistake or whether it wasn’t better to start again. EL noted that the reduced design wasn’t that far removed from the original scheme B and the original program which had been approved by the BOE. Additionally EL noted that the reduced size is only something this group would notice since they have participated in the entire development and are aware of what was deleted. EL noted that it would not look like a mistake. MN responded that he and the group would need time to digest the changes and asked for a set of plans. 8. MN noted that Holly Ward had asked for more direction on what to fund raise for. TH agreed and noted that more direction will be given on what it’s for and how much is needed. 9. Schedule:  Next FSC meeting will be scheduled for November 3rd at 3:30 PM. Next PAC meeting will be scheduled for November 4th at 3:30 PM. Presentation of the PAC design to the BOE will be on Tuesday, December 7th. END Prepared by Christopher Ades of Deems Lewis McKinley. Please advise if you feel that any of the above items are inaccurate or need further clarification or detail. cc: Attendees, File +0'-3"+0'+16"+49"+49"3' R I G G I N G C L E A R Z O N E+0'+49"+0"+0"+0"+0"+0"+0'-3"+0'+16"+49"+49"3' R I G G I N G C L E A R Z O N E+0'+49"+0"+0"+0"+0"+0" 3' R I G G I N G C L E A R Z O N E 3' R I G G I N G C L E A R Z O N E BASEMENT 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR TECH LEVEL TOTALS ORIGINALPROPOSED AREAREDUCTIONS2,886 SQ FT 21,277 SQ FT 11,546 SQ FT 1,696 SQ FT 2,396 SQ FT 7,530 SQ FT19,477 SQ FT2,066 SQ FT 820 SQ FT 1,800 SQ FT 4016 SQ FT 700 SQ FT 38,105 SQ FT 7,336 SQ FT 30,769 SQ FT Target: 29,000 SQ FT